Parshat tazria answers

Tazria-Metzora 5718
Alef.

RaShBaM who normally emphasizes the Peshat of the verses of the Tora, concedes that when it comes to the issues involved in Tzora’at, neither the Peshat nor knowing the “way of the world” is helpful.  Apparently these matters are so supernatural, that without the frame of reference of the Oral Tradition, there is not much that one can say on his own. The only recourse is to rely on the interpretations that are recorded in Rabbinical literature. (This is not altogether surprising considering RaShBaM’s status as one of the most well-known Ba’alei Tosafot.)

With respect to most of the contents of Mishpatim, laws that stand at the opposite end of the spectrum when compared to laws dealing with ritual purity and impurity, i.e., as much as issues like Tzora’at represent the area of Chukim whose rhyme and reason are at best obscure, Mishpatim are the logical and readily understandable rules that comprise a social contract which every civilization must develop in order to maintain civility among its citizenry, once again RaShBaM does not think that an analysis of Peshat will be terribly helpful. The practical Halachot emerge from Derashot of particular words, as well as the Masoret (tradition) of the Oral Tradition, e.g., Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai. However, in the case of Mishpatim, in addition to directing the student to focus upon the commentaries of ChaZaL, he also adds that general ways of the world/society might be helpful to understand the various aspects of the civil law code. Since the laws governing interpersonal relationships within society are man-made and at least in theory are logical, comparisons between law codes including that of the Tora, could be revealing and informative.  (An interesting comparison to make is between Mishpatim and Hammurabi’s Code. Not only can parallels be detected, but also significant differences.)

Beit.

1. Here are the sources that Arachin 16a cites to support its contention:

i. Lashon HaRa (evil speech):

         Tehillim 101:5

Whoso slandereth his neighbour in secret, him will I destroy;¹ whoso is haughty of eye and proud of heart, him will I not suffer.

    ii. Shefichut Damim (spilling blood):

         II Shmuel 3:29

Let it fall upon the head of Joab, and upon all his father's house; and let there not fail from the house of Joab one that hath an issue, or that is a leper, or that leaneth on a staff, or that falleth by the sword, or that lacketh bread.

    iii. Shevuat Shav (needless oath):

         II Melachim 5:23, 27

         And Naaman said: 'Be content, take two talents.'…

And he urged him, and bound two talents of silver in two bags, with two changes of raiment, and laid them upon two of his servants; and they bore them before him. The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever.' And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow. 

    iv. Gilui Arayot (sexual immorality):

         Beraishit 12:17

   And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife.

    v. Gasut HaRuach (arrogance):

         II Divrei HaYamim 26:16, 19

   But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up so that he did corruptly, and he trespassed against the LORD his God; for he went into the temple of the LORD to burn incense upon the altar of incense…

Then Uzziah was wroth; and he had a censer in his hand to burn incense; and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy broke forth in his forehead before the priests in the house of the LORD, beside the altar of incense.   

     vi. Tzarot HaAyin (envy):

         VaYikra 14:35

   Then he that owneth the house shall come and tell the priest, saying: “There seemeth to me to be as it were a plague in the house.”—The school of R. Yishmael taught: he who would (selfishly) reserve the house for himself. 

    vii. Gezel (thievery):

         VaYikra 14:36

   And the priest shall command that they empty the house, before the priest go in to see the plague, that all that is in the house be not made unclean; and afterward the priest shall go in to see the house.—in connection with a Tanna taught: Because he had gathered money that was not his own, the priest comes and scatters it.

(Klee Yakar references the following Midrash that lists ten causes for Tzora’at:

ויקרא רבה (וילנא) פרשת מצורע פרשה יז

ג על עשרה דברים נגעים באים על 1) ע"ז ועל 2) גילוי עריות ועל 3) שפיכות דמים ועל 4) חילול השם ועל 5) ברכת השם ועל 6) הגוזל את הרבים ועל 7) גוזל את שאינו שלו ועל 8) גסי הרוח ועל 9) לשון הרע ועל 10) עין רע, על ע"ז מישראל שהעידו עדות שקר בהקב"ה ואמרו לעגל (שמות לב) אלה אלהיך ישראל ומנין שלקו בצרעת שנא' (שם /שמות ל"ב/) וירא משה את העם כי פרוע הוא שפרחה בהן צרעת, ועל גילוי עריות מבנות ציון שנאמר (ישעיה ג) יען כי גבהו בנות ציון ומנין שלקו בצרעת שנאמר (שם /ישעיהו ג'/) ושפח ה' קדקד בנות ציון, ועל שפיכות דמים מיואב שנאמר (שמואל ב ג) יחולו על ראש יואב, ועל חילול השם מגיחזי (מ"ב =מלכים ב'= ה) ויאמר גחזי נער איש האלקים מהו מאומה מן מומא דאית ביה ומנין שלקה בצרעת שנאמר (שם /מלכים ב' ה'/) וצרעת נעמן תדבק בך, ועל ברכת השם מגלית שנאמר (שמואל א יז) ויקלל הפלשתי את דוד באלקיו ומנין שלקה בצרעת שנאמר (שם /שמואל א' י"ז/) היום הזה יסגרך ה' בידי ואין הסגרה האמור כאן אלא לשון צרעת שנאמר והסגירו הכהן, ועל גוזל את הרבים משבנא שהיה נהנה מן ההקדשות ומנין שלקה בצרעת שנאמר (ישעיה כב) הנה ה' מטלטלך טלטלה גבר ועוטך עטה ואין ועוטך עטה אלא צרעת שנאמר (ויקרא יג) ועל שפם יעטה, ועל הגוזל את שאינו שלו מעוזיהו דכתיב (ד"ה =דברי הימים= ב כו) ויהי המלך עוזיהו מצורע עד יום מותו, ועל גסות הרוח דכתיב (שם /דברי הימים ב' כ"ו/) וכחזקתו גבה לבו עד להשחית וימעל בה' אלקיו, ועל לשון הרע ממרים דכתיב (במדבר יב) ותדבר מרים ואהרן במשה ומנין שלקתה בצרעת שנאמר (שם /במדבר י"ב/) והענן סר מעל האהל, ועל עין הרע שנאמר (ויקרא יד) ובא אשר לו הבית מי שייחד ביתו לו ואינו רוצה ליהנות לאחרים, כי הא דאמר ר"א שקערורות שקיע ביתו באלין לווטייא לפיכך משה מזהיר את ישראל כי תבאו אל ארץ כנען.

2. i. Lashon HaRa:

        RaShI on 14:4 d.h. Tehorot

        This is to the exclusion of a non-Kosher bird. Since the afflictions come due to evil speech, which is an act of excessive babbling, therefore birds are necessary for his purification, because they are babbling constantly by chirping.:

     v. Gasut HaRuach:

      Ibid. d.h. VeEitz Erez

  (The reason why cedar is included in the mixture with which the purified Metzora is sprinkled is) because the cause for the affliction might have been haughtiness (the cedar tree is extremely tall.)

     (vi. Tzarot HaAyin—the Talmud derives this source from our Parasha.)

3.  It would appear that since it is clear that these afflictions are supernatural—e.g., a) how can the same affliction that affects people also affect houses, clothing and furniture; b) in light of the Kohen only diagnosing the malady during the day, and never during Sheva Berachot or Yom Tov, this is an indication that it was not an affliction that was contagious; c) the obvious cause-and-effect in the cases of Miriam, Na’aman and Uzia suggests that there is a direct relationship between Tzora’at and iniquities, which is not necessarily the case with regard to other infirmities; d) Tzora’at is no longer considered to take place during the period of Hester Panim—it is for this reason that the Rabbis strove to associate the affliction with not only LaShon HaRa, but other transgressions as well.

Gimel.

1.  Sephorno: Tzora’at that is discussed in the Tora is a condition that specifically comes about as a result of some sort of sin, and offers the afflicted the opportunity to atone and repent. This is in contrast to other diseases that are a function of either illness that arises from some sort of imperfection in the human organism or the result of the person not taking care of himself properly. Consequently, in Tzora’at, the quarantine is intended to allow the person to consider how to atone rather than a means to assure the health of others.

     Klee Yakar: The commentator does not rule out that Tzora’at could be a natural disease as well, when he quotes “Yeish Omrim” who make such a claim. Furthermore, with regard to those who understand Tzora’at as a spiritual matter, rather than emphasizing the atonement aspect, he stresses the fact that this is a means by which to publicly expose an individual who has sinned in such a way that he has avoided public scrutiny.

     Buber: The philosopher does not specifically associate sin with Tzora’at, but rather dwells upon the state of Tuma (ritual impurity) that it generates. He states that Tuma in general is an indication that there has been a disruption in the connection between a person and God. That leaves the door open to attribute such a disruption to all sorts of causes, beyond only sinful behavior on the part of the afflicted.

2.  R. S.R. Hirsch on VaYikra 13:2 (Judaica Press, p. 331):

 …The person affected is נגוע, literally “touched” by the Finger of God. It is a weaker form of נגף from which we get מגפה, the sudden stroke of death. The word “disease” by which it is usually translated…by no means expresses the idea of נגע. “Plague” also is scarcely any better; it refers only to the person who is affected and makes no reference, as נגע does, to the idea of its origin. So the Gemora in Horiyot 10a refers to the explicit (VaYikra 14:34) “ונתתי נגע צרעת בבית וכו'” and concludes from it that for נגעי אדם too, all such נגעים are excluded from טומאה which can be referred back to other pathological causes and need not be taken as directly sent by God…

“צרעת”: צרע (related to זרע, זרה, to throw out, and to סרח, to rot), points to a foulness that breaks out from within, whereas נגע indicates its origins from without, and indeed, as already remarked, as the direct Touch of God. Accordingly, when the Tora combines the two words in the expression נגע צרעת, it may want to teach us that not every צרעת is מטמא, but only such that proclaims itself as  a נגע, as sent directly by God; and again only such a נגע that shows itself as a צרעת, as an inner foulness that breaks out from within onto the skin. According to תורת כהנים, in the idea נגע there is also the conception of something objectionable and painful, מלמד שמצטער ממנו, and moreover here to such a degree that אחרים מצטערים ממנו, that its proximity disturbs other people too, as the ראב"ד thereon, says מריחה that its odor is objectionable. Possibly this may be indicated too in the following: והובא (he is brought), others find reason to bring him to the כהן.

3. According to Klee Yakar on VaYikra 13:2—

It seems to me to explain the word “Metzora” as a compound word made up of “Motzee”  (brings forth) “Ra” (evil), that it reveals and brings forth to the outside all of his evil that is within him, the inner rot.

4. According to Klee Yakar on VaYikra 13:2--

And this is the way that one can account for the double language in the verse that states “A person who has on the skin of his flesh a rising…and it was on the skin of his flesh for a Nega Tzora’at “. Why does it have to say twice “skin of his flesh”? To say to you that this is  the rising and the breaking. If this would have occurred to a person who is pure of thought, it would not have been damaging because it could have been cured easily. But because this is on the skin of his flesh, i.e., the sinner, therefore it becomes a Nega Tzora’at .

  5. In II Melachim 5, we learn of the Syrian general Na’aman who is cured by the prophet Elisha of his Tzora’at. In verses 15-19 we see the extent of the Kiddush HaShem that took place once he is cured of his malady and directly attributes that cure to the God of Israel.

Daled.

1. Ba’al Shem Olam states that when I have something described by two or more words, when clarification for each of the words is given, the last mentioned is the first clarified, and only afterwards is there a return to the previous terms. Consequently, at the beginning of VaYikra 13, it states:

ויקרא פרק יג

(ב) אדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו שאת או ספחת או בהרת והיה בעור בשרו לנגע צרעת והובא אל אהרן הכהן או אל אחד מבניו הכהנים:

(ג) וראה הכהן את הנגע בעור הבשר ושער בנגע הפך לבן ומראה הנגע עמק מעור בשרו נגע צרעת הוא וראהו הכהן וטמא אתו:

(ד) ואם בהרת לבנה הוא בעור בשרו ועמק אין מראה מן העור ושערה לא הפך לבן והסגיר הכהן את הנגע שבעת ימים:

While Baheret is clarified explicitly in v. 4,  and in v. 3 only the term Nega or Nega Tzora’at appears, nevertheless since v. 3 is providing distinctions in types of Tzora’at, it should be assumed that not only v. 4, but even v. 3 is discussing forms of specifically Baheret.  

2.  a) Shemot 6. The geneology of Moshe is given. We start with the descendants of Reuven and Shimon before getting to Levi. But once we get to Levi, we go into great detail about Levi.

   b) According to RaMBaN, Parashat Mishpatim is a commentary and expansion upon the last of the Ten Commandments listed at the end of Parashat Yitro, i.e., Lo Tachmod (you shall not covet.)

Heh.

1. א. Does “Hafach Lavan” mean the opposite of white, or reversing into white?

It might be possible to think that the hair that started out white, has turned into the opposite of white, i.e., black. All that is connoted is that some sort of inversion from the norm has occurred, indicating the presence of a particular malady.

ב. Ibn Ezra perhaps thought that the literal interpretation of the verse would be that the hair caused the area to turn white, as opposed to itself turning white.

2. Karnei Ohr (commentary on Ibn Ezra) on 13:2 where the word Huva also appears, suggests that one could have thought that perhaps the case rather than the person would be brought to the Kohen, comes the Ibn Ezra to insist that the person himself must be inspected by the Kohen.

3. א. It is possible to think that the process of purification involves some sort of physical treatment of the affected area. Ibn Ezra therefore states that all that is required for purification is the verbal declaration of the Kohen.

ב. Ibn Ezra on 13:3 interprets VeTimei Oto also as nothing more than a verbal declaration.

4.  א. From the examples that Ibn Ezra cites, he believes that sickness, which is his interpretation of Tzora’at, can be Sent by HaShem, as well as plagues such as the hornet, His Word or His Anger. At least with respect to Tzora’at, as indicated by Klee Yakar above, it is something that emanates from within the individual, as opposed to being exclusively a God-Induced state.

ב. The claim from Shemot 23:28 suggests that the verb “to send” can only be used with respect to God when He Sends a living thing, such as the hornet. Sickness which is intangible, would then require a different verb.

ג. The sending of God’s “Word” is similarly an intangible entity and therefore would support the idea that this verb vis-à-vis God would not be exclusively used in connection to living things.

Vav.

ChaZaL appear to feel that when the extreme opposite of the norm takes place, i.e., not only a single hair turns white, but every hair turns white, this becomes an indication that in fact there is no Tuma. With regard to repentance, this is only relevant when there is a contrast, and the majority of the behavior of the individual is appropriate. But if everything about the individual is perverse, repentance is no longer relevant. (The explanation for why a generation that is completely Tameh do not have to be concerned about Tuma and Tahara perhaps reflects a similar perspective.) By extension, when the norms of society are completely overturned in every aspect, things have reached such an extreme that the only way that things can be straightened out is by the advent of the Moshiach. The Gemora says that he will come either when everyone is righteous, or everyone is corrupt. This ChaZaL suggests that latter scenario.